Revisiting Zama

[Michael Collins]

A couple of regulars there have tried to remove my post. 

We don't do that over here. 
Have you read this thread?

It doesn't happen there either. There is a world of difference between a poster suggesting a thread has gone in circles for some time and should probably be closed to removing a post.

Dear Readers,
I must confess to have gone around in circles at some points. It feels like that way anyhow; I have found myself re-running the story of Zama over and over in my head because I have genuinely had an issue with reconcilling the other accouts of the campaign with it.
Those other accounts have apparently been discredited in the past and are still dismissed for reasons of their literary style. I feel however that, being drawn from previous Roman sources, that they have some value as history. 
So, it is difficult to decide between them who is telling the truth, but in addition to the contadictions, additions and omissions that come to one`s attention in reading Polybius`, Livy`s, Appian`s and Dio`s accounts, we have the more detailed justifications of Polybius` battle from modern historians (by modern, I mean post-nineteeth century) to deal with.  It`s interesting that they do not all accept Polybius` version of Zama word for word; even they have expressed doubts about the campaign`s circumstances. e.g. why did Hannibal decide to give battle, when on many occasions in Italy he had refused battle and slipped away from his opponents. 
To date in the discussions here, I have mostly expressed my doubts about the Polybian battle, but elsewhere I`ve been working on presenting evidence that will suggest a different ending to the 2PW. Mostly likely this "evidence" won`t take the form of a corroded javelin head from Kbor Klib, but it will involve going back to read Polybius, Livy, Appian and Dio again.  It`s a work in progress and looking again at an event or a series of events may only appear to be "going around in circles".